Permadeath in multiplayers

[Gray-Philosophy]

Hello Escapists

Lately I've been thinking a lot about the concept of permadeath in games in general, or at the very least a "consequential loss" state. I'm dabbling a bit in the creation of a videogame concept, as a creative outlet for myself. In this game which is supposed to be a multiplayer RPG, I've opted to go for permadeath once you die, cause it just made the most sense to me.

Spoiler: Some more context on the game, just in case you're interested

I'll try to keep it brief

The game is supposed to be a first-person multiplayer sandbox and RPG in a completely interactable and destructible low-fantasy world (a man can dream)

Mechanically it's very action oriented and skill dependant, rather than gear and number dependant.

Progression happens in the form of unlocking new skills and abilities, without actually ever scaling up, or increasing your base health and damage output. The intention is that every player is equal regardless of level, the higher level players will just have more mechanics available to play with.

This ties in with the reason behind my choice of permadeath. Even if you die, you're able to jump back into the game without any major setback, you're still able to compete with higher level players and pick up where you left off.

Another core premise of the game is that I want it to make sense in relation to itself. A sort of logical consistency throughout, as in the worldss laws of physics remain constant, species have evolutionary ancestry, everything has a reason to exist, what's available to the player is available to NPC's and vice versa. Nothing will be "just because" or "magic did it!". At least as much as possible.

This, again, is another reason I've opted to go with permadeath. Because if players could ressurect, ressurection would have to be a possible phenomenon within the game's own univers, and all of a sudden everyone safe for the poorest of peasants can become effectively immortal.

Ideally, it'll be a "fantasy simulator".

As I was explaining my views to a friend of mine, she sounded almost horrified by the idea that you'd risk losing your character in the game. I tried explaining my opinion on the risk vs. reward it creates, but I could tell she still wasn't sold on the idea.

While it's still appealing to me, because I feel that it creates tension, even provokes an adrenaline rush at times, it got me thinking about how it might be possible to make the idea of permanently losing your character a little less threatening, perhaps even offering a benefit in the next playthrough.

Personally I love the way permadeath has been handled in a lot of games, like DayZ because it's more about the journey and player interaction than getting all teh lewtz. Or EVE online because you're often largely responsible for bringing yourself in danger so it's not really that much of an unexpected suckerpunch, not to mention you can ensure some of your stuff. Or even Minecraft, again because you're mostly responsible for the potential danger you put yourself in, so if you die it's cause you f*cked up, but the risk is often worth the shiny materials. I'm not going to mention roguelikes cause that's kinda their thing afterall.

What's your own opinion of games with permadeath? What about it makes it appeal, or not appeal to you? Or if there are certain games that do it better than others, what is it about them that makes a difference?
And finally, what do you reckon would be necessary to make permadeath in a multiplayer seem more appealing, or just less threatening?

Spoiler: Some of my own current ideas for it

I've been playing around with the idea that players might keep some of their previously earned experience for a new character.

Perhaps some of thier more valuable stored items could be passed on as heirlooms.

I'm thinking there should definitely be some kind of incentive to not kill other players to prevent griefing. While still making it a viable self-defense without ultimately getting punished for it.

TL;DR:
- Permadeath in games
- Do you like it? yes? no? why?
- What do you think permadeath needs to work in a multiplayer?

 

[kris40k]

Permadeath removes player emotional investment in the game. MMORPGs last for 5, 10 years because players become invested in the character that they are developing, and even if they run into a little setback here or there, they continue to make progress towards their goals. With a permadeath game, they are not going to be invested in their character, as they know "gonna die someday, so eff it". On the flip side, Hardcore Diablo players would be an example of players that do get invested in their character development, taking a great deal of time to pour over every details to come up with a plan and develop a high survivability character. However, that group of players, and folks like it, are small.

Games like Roguelikes can get away with permadeath because they are short and quick to recover from. Honestly, if I've been playing Ziggurat for more than 30 mins and I'm still on my first character of the night, I'm fucking surprised. I honestly have no investment in any character in that game, there is nothing keeping me tied to it. Its just fun to jump into and start blasting for a few. Its not an RPG.

So people might play, but they won't hang around. Those that want character development will avoid it.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I liked how rogue legacy did it. Sure it was single player but you never really felt like you lost too much .

I used to play Diablo 2 Hardcore mode. And this was back with dial up. Where lag was the biggest threat.

So i like permadeath in some games. My suggestion for a good permadeath.

-short game ( binding of issac). Preferably with random gerated dungeons.

-rapid level progression. ( diablo 2)

-loss of character =/= loss of progression ( rogue legacy and path of exile)

If a game has any of these three things, then i won't mind permadeath. However if you give me a game like Divinity original Sin( a 60+ hour game) and add permadeath ( which it does have in hero mode), i won't even attempt it. There is just too much to lose.

 

[FalloutJack]

I already hate dying in a game as is. Why? Because I loathe retread, redoing some part of the story that I've done before to regain lost progress. Why would I go for a system that can take away even more? I already live that one in real ife.

 

[Michel Henzel]

To each his own, but permadeath has never been my cup of tea. While I can somewhat understand the appeal, it just isn't for me. Spending hours upon hours of building up your character, only to lose it in seconds and having to do it all over again just isn't my thing. Often such games require quite a bit of investment in terms of time, and that is simply something I do not have. Nor do I have the will to keep subjecting myself to such things, I'm too much of a salty person.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

Permadeath removes player emotional investment in the game. MMORPGs last for 5, 10 years because players become invested in the character that they are developing, and even if they run into a little setback here or there, they continue to make progress towards their goals. With a permadeath game, they are not going to be invested in their character, as they know "gonna die someday, so eff it".

That is a very good point, and it gave me an idea. People do indeed get attached to their characters, myself included. The system would of course have to feel fair so you don't feel like you risk dying every five minutes, but when you finally do kick the bucket I also don't want them to feel like all their time was wasted.

What if a type of legacy system was made?
Throughout the character's playthrough and progression, they're actually unlocking all sorts of either achievements or future bonuses of some kind, unknown to themselves. Certain interactions are logged as significant events, and once the character dies all of these things become available.

The player is presented with their own character's legacy at this point. They can access and see all the achievements they've accomplished, which might then provide bonuses to all their future characters from that point on. All things that encourage the feeling that, while their character might not be alive anymore, their accomplishments were never in vain. The history of that character lives on, even if it's just for themselves.
Hell, perhaps if they've managed to accomplish something significant enough, they may be given a place in a "History book" equivalent of a scoreboard, forever immortalising their name.

-loss of character =/= loss of progression ( rogue legacy and path of exile)

Most definitely. Like I mentioned briefly in my response just above this, I wouldn't want a player to walk away feeling like they've wasted all their hours if they lose their character.

I already hate dying in a game as is. Why? Because I loathe retread, redoing some part of the story that I've done before to regain lost progress.

Also a good point. I figure the game would have to play in such a way that retread does not become an issue. One way I can think of doing this is the hard way, adding so much unlinear story that repetition is highly unlikely to occur, even through multiple playthroughs. Or the lazy way, by adding none at all so there's no retreadable story besides the events caused by player interaction. While it's a lot of work, I'd personally prefer the first option.